JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. A Civil Suit bearing No. 297 of 2010 was instituted by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court, wherein, he claimed a decree for specific performance, of, oral contract of sale recorded inter-se him and co-defendants No. 1 and 2, contract whereof is with respect to the suit property. The suit was resisted by all the codefendants, by theirs instituting a common written statement thereto. However, when the civil suit progressed upto the stage of closure of plaintiff’s evidence, whereat, the defendants’ were to adduce their evidence upon all the relevant issues, thereat an application cast under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was instituted by all the co-defendants, before the learned trial Court. The amendment as sought to be incorporated in paragraph-3 of the written statement is reproduced hereunder:- “That the applicants/defendants wants to amend the para No.3 of the written statement in the line No.23 after the word “defendant No.3 and 4” by adding the following “hence the defendant No. 3 and 4 are bonafide purchaser”.” It was specifically averred in the application that upon the aforesaid amendment being permitted to be incorporated, it, would not alter the nature and complexion of the pleadings initially setup by the defendants, rather it being merely clarificatory in nature, hence leave for its incorporation in paragraph-3, being affordable vis-à-vis the defendants. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court, hence being aggrieved therefrom, the defendants are led to institute the instant petition before this Court. 2. The fulcrum for testing the validity of the pronouncement impugned before this Court, rests, upon whether the amendment in respect thereof leave, for its, incorporation in the relevant paragraph of the written statement, was prayed for, by the defendants, being or not clarificatory in nature. In case this Court upon making fathomings’ of the pleadings discerns therefrom qua the proposed amendment being merely clarificatory in nature, ipso facto, thereupon the nature and complexion of the pleadings initially setup by the defendants would remain unaltered. The concomitant sequel whereof would be, of, the leave refused by the learned trial Court, to the defendants, for incorporation in the written statement, the proposed amendment, being ingrained with a vice of illegality besides material irregularity. However, in making the aforesaid gaugings, it is imperative, to make an incisive reading of the pleadings setup by the contesting parties. 3. The concomitant sequel whereof would be, of, the leave refused by the learned trial Court, to the defendants, for incorporation in the written statement, the proposed amendment, being ingrained with a vice of illegality besides material irregularity. However, in making the aforesaid gaugings, it is imperative, to make an incisive reading of the pleadings setup by the contesting parties. 3. In paragraph-6 of the plaint, which stands extracted hereinafter:- “That on dated 26.8.2010 plaintiff received a registered postal letter and when he read it he was shocked to read that defendants No. 3 and 4 has filed a false and frivolous case of permanent injunction regarding the suit land and claiming themselves as owner in possession over the suit land, then plaintiff enquired the matter from revenue department and applied for certified copy of sale deed then he came to know that defendant No. 1 and 2 has sold the suit land to defendant No. 3 and 4 on 28/10/2009 illegally for which they had no right to do so. Moreover, it was in the knowledge of defendant No. 3 and 4 that defendant No. 1 and 2 has agreed to sale the suit land to plaintiff as per agreement to sell (oral) dated 15/6/2009 as all the parties are from the same village and are in relationship with each other further it was in the knowledge of defendants No. 3 and 4 that plaintiff has constructed his house and cattle shed over the suit land.” it is specifically elucidated of, co-defendants being aware of the factum of occurrence of an oral agreement of sale, of the suit property, inter-se the plaintiff and co-defendants No. 1 and 2. The aforesaid trite factum, carries all the elements, of, the plaintiff concerting to blunt besides oust any espousals, of, co-defendants No. 3 and 4, of, the execution of the sale deed by defendants No. 1 and 2 with them, acquiring any virtue of validity, arising from the factum of co-defendants No. 3 and 4 being bonafide purchasers without notice, for value, conspicuously with theirs holding knowledge of existence, thereat, of an oral agreement of sale entered inter-se the plaintiff and co-defendants No. 1 and 2. The aforesaid averments were most vehemently denied by all co-defendants, by theirs meteing dis-affirmative replies thereto. The aforesaid averments were most vehemently denied by all co-defendants, by theirs meteing dis-affirmative replies thereto. The learned trial Court has, however, not borne in mind the aforesaid material existing on record, rather it appears to be guided merely by the principles of law encapsulated in judicial verdicts, narrated in its impugned order. The principles of law encapsulated in the verdicts enunciated, in, the impugned order, though make a vivid pronouncement, of, belated concerts of the litigant concerned, to seek leave of the Court concerned, to beget amendments in the pleadings, not, warranting imputation of any validity thereto, especially with material marking the factum of the litigant concerned, being aware, of the existence of the relevant facts tritely at the stage of institution of the pleadings, whereupon the disabling factor of his being indiligent is attractable vis-à-vis him. 4. However, the extant pleadings, as referred hereinabove, do not unveil, of, the co-defendants not resisting the espousals made by the plaintiff, in, paragraph-6 (supra), whereupon he strived to blunt any assayings of the codefendants, of, theirs acquiring ostensible title and legal ownership vis-à-vis the suit property, espousals whereof of the plaintiff, stood vehemently denied by all the co-defendants. The effect of the aforesaid pleadings, is, of the co-defendants meteing appropriate replies to the pleadings (supra) of the plaintiff, though therein theirs’, not, taking to cast them in the precise legal phraseology, nor theirs with pin pointed accuracy making apposite articulations’ in their written statement, of, the sale deed executed in respect of the suit property enjoying legal validity, it being a sequel, to theirs’ acquiring the protection of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act. Consequently, if they subsequently, even if belatedly, make an effort, to, with the leave of the Court, incorporate the hereinabove extracted averments theirs hence merely mete clarifications, with pointed precision, of, the benefits, contemplated in Section 42 of the Transfer of Property Act, being ensuable vis-à-vis them. Concomitant, sequel thereof, is that with the nature of pleadings initially setup by the defendants, hence not undergoing any gross alteration in their character or complexion, rather the proposed amendments being merely clarificatory in nature, hence all judicial pronouncements relied upon by the learned trial Court in its impugned judgment, were grossly misapplied vis-à-vis the facts at hand. In aftermath, the impugned order suffers from a gross perversity and absurdity. In aftermath, the impugned order suffers from a gross perversity and absurdity. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and impugned order is quashed and set aside. 5. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 24.10.2017. The learned trial Court shall permit the plaintiff to institute amended replication to the amended pleadings of the defendants. 6. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.